Price v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Passaic County

• Decision Date: 01 August 1899
• Docket Number: 1899.,March Term,7
• Citation: 96 F. 174
• Parties: PRICE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF PASSAIC COUNTY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

96 F. 174

PRICE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF PASSAIC COUNTY.

No. 7, March Term, 1899.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

August 1, 1899

Julius J. Frank, for plaintiff in error.

Dewitt C. Bolton, for defendant in error.

Before ACHESON and DALLAS, Circuit Judges, and BUFFINGTON, District judge.

BUFFINGTON District Judge.

This is a writ of error brought to review the action of the circuit court in sustaining a demurrer and entering judgment in favor of the defendant in a suit brought by Bruce Price, the plaintiff in error, against the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Passaic. In pursuance of chapter 285 of the Laws of 1895 of New Jersey, whereby the board of chosen freeholders of counties were, inter alia, authorized to appoint three commissioners, 'who shall have power to erect on the property now owned by said county such buildings as they may deem suitable for the purposes of this act,' the board of chosen freeholders of Passaic county named certain commissioners to erect a court house at Paterson N.J. These commissioners invited Prof. William R. Ware, of Columbia College, to act as 'their professional adviser both in the conduct of the competition and in the examination of the designs submitted ' and issued a circular to architects, dated June 1 1896, requesting them to submit plans. In pursuance thereof the plaintiff, with some fifty others, prepared and submitted designs for a court house. His plans, with those of eleven others, were selected by Prof. Ware, and recommended to the commissioners. The latter, from the thirty-eight additional plans, selected one for the building and its designer as the architect, and awarded premiums of $300 each to five other of said thirty-eight. The plaintiff alleges that this was in violation of the agreement embodied in said circular; that by its terms the commissioners were confined in their choice to the twelve selected by Prof. Ware; that by the commissioners going outside said number the plaintiff was damnified, and a right of action accrued to him to recover the expense incurred in the preparation of his plans. Assuming, for present purposes, that any special damage was done the plaintiff, who, it will be observed, was not necessarily one of the six to be selected, two questions yet remain: First, whether there was a contract to select from the twelve chosen by Prof. Ware; and, secondly, if so, could the commissioners thus delegate their delegated authority? On the first question we think the letter cannot be read to bind the commissioners to confine themselves to the choice made by Prof. Ware. The first clause asserts in the commissioners themselves 'full...